Absolute joke.

I might be alone in thinking the Prior one deserved a ban. Maybe one game but with his record you can see why it has nudged upwards.

The situation regarding what is happening week after week with St Helens players is becoming an urgent issue now though - it's being talked about across the game.

Does feel like one rule for Saints and another one for everyone else

Agreed - that’s three weeks on the bounce the opposition have got frustrated and attacked one (or more) of our players.

I assume that’s what you mean, unless you think Lees should have been banned for standing still last week and Sione for tackling a player taking the ball to the line? Even Wigan fans (known for their tolerance of saints players) say it was never a ban.

The “one rule for st Helens” appears to be try to fabricate a ban each week. I think we’ve had more bans than any club and i don’t think o can remember a bad tackle (eg Napa, Tetavano, Singleton against us in the last few games) amongst any of them.

Is it? By who? For all the claims that we're given preferential treatment, I think we're 3rd in terms of charges and bans behind Leeds and Catalans. We've had many a ban this year and far more charges than most teams.

The successful appeals are weird though, I'll admit that.It shows that the disciplinary board itself has major problems. For a charge to be brought I thought they had to agree on it. To agree on it, decide it's a ban, then agree that they were wrong 24 hours later is bizarre. But in the end the right decision has been made. Does anyone know if it was the same people who brought the charge who then dealt with the appeals, or is it different people?

It just feels like the displinary panel is reaching and trying to hit a number, or find something in certain games. I've spotted all season that there seems to be a big trend that when there is a controversial decision going one way, they'll usually find a charge for the other team, no matter how minor. It's almost like they're trying to fend off criticism by trying to balance it. It certainly felt that way with Mata'utia's ban given the Singleton incident and how borderline red/yellow that was. How they even found that to bring the charge is beyond me, it's so innocuous. It was also that way with Lees ban, you're banning three from Catalans, so they just find something to bring a charge, even if it's just for someone running into you.

FWIW I thought Prior's ban was very harsh. For me that's fine, it's a tiny bit late but at worst it's a yellow and no ban. Jason Hooper would have had to stack shelves if these rules existing in his day. I understand what they're trying to do with these bans, but they're going too far. Everyone can tell the difference between a nasty, sly shot on a kicker/passer and a genuine attempt, except the panel it seems.

I don't think there's evidence of bias, more that they are being hugely overzealous on the bans generally. Its a physical contact sport and sometimes contact will be a bit late or high entirely by accident or due to fatigue, and anyone who has been around the game would agree that its cleaner now than it has ever been.

As you say, everyone can recognize (or ought to be able to) the difference between a pure accident/low risk contact and something with intent/malice and the in-between of reckless.

Tetevano was for me a deliberate attempt to hurt Hurrell with no regard as to the consequence, and deserved a long ban. Holroyd's punching probably didn't deserve 10 games, but at the same time its something that can be stopped as its under the complete control of the player. As an example it may be useful to remind other players.

But some of these other bans don't do anything except confuse players and leading to weakened sides playing every week. The number of suspensions is just ridiculous and damages the quality of the sport at a time when most teams are running paper thin squads with far less depth than in previous years.

Same here. It’s absolutely outrageous he got a ban and a 2 game ban at that. Absolutely outrageous. If I was a top player here I’d seriously consider trying to move to the nrl, the game here is a joke because of the judiciary panel

Having watched it a few times, I can’t see much in the prior one, his head is already ducked etc and in a tackling motion as the ball leaves Richardson’s boot for me and he’s therefore committed.

Has anyone seen the wording of the charge and ruling (asking because I haven’t) because I’d be interested to see if it got two games purely for the lateness or because they thought it was a touch high? If it was just late, in their opinion, then 2 games seems incredibly harsh when you’re talking fractions of a second.

The only reason he was fractionally late was because he didn't hit with full force. Had he opted to clean Richardson out completely he'd likely not have been charged.
Pressure on kickers has never been lower than it is now, they've pretty much got free rein to launch bomb after tedious bomb on the fifth as it is. It's not an area of the game that needs this degree of policing right now.

Does anyone have a clip of the Prior tackle?

I suspect Prior got two matches rather than one because of his history. If it had been his first offence then he would likely have got a one match ban.

I think the ban itself is a little harsh but from personal experience you know if your shot could be potentially a touch late. Best if you just don't touch kickers nowadays.

Correct me if I'm wrong but in the 1990's I don't remember the players chasing down a kicker making regular contact with the kicker after they have kicked. I'm sure there was the odd one but it seems that nowadays kickers are hit very often and I'll be honest I don't buy this being committed to the tackle line because if they were committed surely at some point they would make contact before the kick. For me it's a deliberate ploy to put the kicker off but without any real intention of actually charging the ball down or making a tackle and leaves the potential to injure a vulnerable player that no longer has the ball and is often on one foot. Although if the RFL are wanting to take this out of the game why don't they just say so and make it clear?

Defences were all over the place in the 90s and certainly not organised enough to charge down a kicker.

I've taken a few snaps from the original hit and the slow mos - one does show Prior a short way away from Richardson as the ball leaves his foot and you could make a case for Prior being able to pull out of the tackle or at least soften it. You can also see Richardson preparing to kick well before Prior sets off and Prior does set off in a hurry.
However, Prior does dip his head and shoulders to make the tackle so that he doesn't go high and indeed he doesn't go anywhere near Richardson's head albeit, Richardson's head does rock back. Maybe in his technique to go low, he doesn't actually see the ball released!
Interestingly the Ref waves Smith's protests away and on the replay Clarke of all people comments 'there's nothing wrong with that tackle from Prior'.
All in all very fine margins. The ban was no doubt extended to two because of previous offences.

Where as just now in origin slinging punches to the head gets you 10 minutes